Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Jul 1982

Vol. 337 No. 11

Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1982: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.

Question again proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Keeffe

We are now looking at section 1, as amended, which is virtually the entire Bill. It is clear that any person will be entitled to go to the tribunal. I have this fear — somewhat reduced as a result of the amendments we have inserted — that we may find that persons involved in industrial disputes are more inclined to go to the the tribunal rather than endeavour to use the normal industrial relations procedures. Hopefully my apprehensions in that regard will prove to be unfounded but, if they are not, it will be absolutely essential that we have some form of review procedure. I have been impressed by the view presented from all sides of the House that none of us wants a situation to arise in which this tribunal will have the effect of interfering with or damaging the normal industrial relations procedures. I still have some concern, reduced somewhat as a result of the amendments the Minister graciously was prepared to accept. But it will be very important indeed that we do not sit back, forget about this Bill and accept it as being permanent legislation without there being some review procedure. I shall be coming to the last amendment I put down, again specifically with the purpose of advocating that this would be a temporary Bill which would lapse after six months, not from the point of view of thinking that the type of problem which the Minister says he is trying to get at and which we all feel should be got at will not exist after six months but so that we would have a proper review after a limited period of time. We must be clear that, under this Bill, everybody is entitled to go to the tribunal, everybody who is involved in an industrial dispute, where under section 35, there has been a decision that a trade dispute is involved. I hope that the Minister's assurances that the tribunal would not be able to make an order in favour of an applicant where that applicant was found not to have been willing to avail of the industrial relations procedures, will in fact turn out to be the views of the tribunal. It would be absolutely disastrous if this tribunal were to have the effect of interfering with the work of the Labour Court.

In regard to the employer representatives on the tribunal I note that in subsection (4) the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is mentioned as providing two names for nomination on the trade union side whereas no name is mentioned on the employer's side. Is it the intention that these will be nominated from the FUE, or possibly one from the FUE and the other from the CII? Why is that taken differently? Why is it not specified in the Bill? Were there apprehensions on the part of the Minister as to the concern of any employer organisation or otherwise and their willingness to work the tribunal? I am interested to know why the Minister adopted this course. I have already had the point from the Minister on the term of office of the members which initially will not be more than a year and which will allow time to review thereafter.

It seems to me that generally, as a result of the amendments, we had tightened the Bill. I believe that, with these amendments, there is a fair chance that the provisions of the Bill will not be abused in the future. At the same time, because of the very serious nature of the situation, I am very anxious that we have a clear and unequivocal commitment, either, as I am proposing in section 2, to the lapsing of the Bill or, alternatively, to a review within a very short time.

Mr. Pattison

It should be clarified that it is people who are disqualified under subsection (1) of section 35 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, who have the right to go to the tribunal. To my mind there is nothing really new in section 1 of this Bill. It re-echoes some of the provisions contained in the Unfair Dismissals Act, even in the Redundancy Acts, or even in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, itself. For example, there is provision in the Unfair Dismissals Act for a situation in which dismissals are contrived, in the sense, in some cases, of employees being forced to resign from jobs through conditions being made rather difficult for them. There is a provision in the Unfair Dismissals Act that an employer does not have to formally dismiss somebody in order to be taken before the Unfair Dismissals Tribunal in a claim against him for unfair dismissal. If an employee can show that conditions were changed to his or her detriment then he or she could succeed and, in many cases, has succeeded.

Similarly the Redundancy Act provides for a period of four weeks in the event of alternative employment being offered. If the employee feels that the alternative employment being offered is not up to the standard of employment that he or she had had, then that employee can refuse such an offer of work and still be eligible to receive redundancy payments and social welfare benefit. Section 35(4)(b) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, provides:

employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of remuneration lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he had habitually obtained in his usual employment in that district, or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed,

I am concerned about the employee who is told by his employer that his conditions will be worsened or made less favourable and his wages will be lowered. If he tells his employer he will leave rather than accept such changes in his employment he will get no employment benefit. If, on the other hand, he tells his employer he will fight this worsening of his conditions and his employer tells him he will stay outside until he accepts then he will not get any social welfare. There is an inconsistency here. I hope such an employee will have recourse to protection and will have recourse to the tribunal. Up to this an employee could be told by the deciding officer or the appeals officer that he was in dispute with his employer and that was the reason he was not working and he could not, therefore, get social welfare benefit. If now the appeals officer can advise such an employee that his employer was acting unreasonably that employee will be entitled to social welfare benefit. I am glad that inconsistency is removed. Have all the subsections to be satisfied in order to qualify or will it be sufficient to satisfy one or two in order to qualify? Will the Minister clarify that for me?

Dr. Woods

Any one will do.

I come now to Deputy O'Keeffe's point in regard to people who are disqualified under section 35 being free to go to the tribunal. Once established the tribunal will set its own terms and regulations and those who do not have a case will very quickly find after a little experience that there is no point in their going to the tribunal. Trivial or vexatious claims will get fairly short shrift. Initially people might have to garner experience of the position but I am sure they would be informed very quickly that they did not come within the terms of reference.

Deputy O'Keeffe made the point that ICTU are specifically mentioned whereas employers organisations, and specifically the FUE, are not mentioned. Following discussions with them ICTU specifically requested representation. There are many employer organisations but to date we have had no request from any of them. We shall be quite happy to consider any representations they may make subsequent to the passing of this Bill and, in the meantime, we have covered employers.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Essentially, if an individual is refused unemployment benefit because of involvement in an industrial dispute, he may go to the tribunal which will take into account all the circumstances of the stoppage of work and then decide whether the applicant was unreasonably deprived of his employment. I wish I could share the Minister's confidence that the tribunal will only be making decisions in relation to hard cases. Since I do not share the Minister's confidence I trust he will accept my amendment for a review of the situation.

Dr. Woods

We are on section 1. I shall come to the amendment later.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, line 24, after "order" to insert "and shall lapse 6 months thereafter".

I make this suggestion for a number of reasons. First, this is rushed legislation and rushed legislation must inevitably turn out to be bad legislation. We have not had a full opportunity of considering the Bill. We have not had an opportunity of receiving representations and reflecting on them. I would have preferred the Committee Stage to take at least a week. Apparently this is not possible because the Minister is anxious to get the Bill today.

The second reason I suggest a lapse after six months is because that would give us an opportunity to have a proper debate on a new Bill. It would give us time to consider all the aspects in the light of the experience gained of the operation of the Bill over the previous six months. We could draw on that experience. I am making the suggestion for the lapsing of the legislation after six months because I believe we will have to review it.

There is still a danger, although I am happy with the Bill now that the Minister has accepted some amendments, that the Bill may result in a strike encouragement situation. We would all wish to ensure that that would not happen, but if it occurs and we find that the effect of the tribunal is that we have an encouragement towards the commencement or prolongation of strikes or, on the other hand, an encouragement of employers and employees away from the normal well-tried and established procedures of the Labour Court, then it is important that the House should have a further opportunity of debating the matter. If the House agreed to my suggestion that the Bill should lapse in six months we could have a further debate on the terms of it. I want to emphasise strongly the need for a review of the terms of the legislation within a short space of time. Mention has been made by a number of Members of other aspects of social welfare legislation which should be attended to. Various abuses have been mentioned on the part of employees and employers and they could be dealt with in the context of a new Bill in six months' time. We should not pass the Bill without making a positive arrangement to view the effects of the legislation within a short space of time in case it turns out to have a bad effect on our industrial relations environment.

Mr. Pattison

I cannot agree with the amendment tabled by Deputy O'Keeffe because it provides that the Bill lapse within six months. This piece of legislation has been urgently sought after for six months, it has taken it six months to get this far and if we agree that it should lapse after another six months I am sure it will take between six and 12 months to get a replacement for it. I agree with some of the reservations expressed by Deputy O'Keeffe about the success or otherwise of the legislation and I have reservations for other reasons. I would like to see a review of the legislation taking place within six months time because I am anxious to ensure it provides the machinery which is needed. In six months I might have identified some shortcomings in the legislation and, indeed, the trade union movement might have identified some shortcomings; but the solution to that is not to propose that the Bill should lapse. If it is found that it is not satisfactory I do not think we would be solving the problem by lapsing it. I would prefer if the legislation remained on the Statute Book pending substitution by an improved measure. I would not accept a situation where the Bill would automatically lapse leaving us with a period of time, 12 months or maybe longer, before a substitute is introduced.

If we accept the amendment we are saying that the Bill is only being introduced for one or two specific cases. There is a necessity for such legislation. It will contribute enormously to improving industrial relations and it will shorten rather than lengthen industrial disputes. In my view the closures at Clover Meats and Comer International would have been shorter if this legislation was in existence. The evidence that exists satisfies me that the provisions of such a Bill would have shortened if not eliminated those two disputes. I can see this preventing further disputes and contributing in a big way towards improving industrial relations. It makes bad industrial relations worse when employees who are deprived of their wages because they cannot go to work are also deprived of social welfare benefits on top of that. That gives them a double reason for being on bad terms with their employer. In such situations workers tend to blame the employer if they do not get their social welfare payments, although it is due to the way the original legislation was framed. If that legislation was not changed industrial relations problems would get worse. I would welcome a review of the legislation before the House in six months or 12 months to see if there are other ways we might improve it, but I would be totally opposed to the legislation lapsing automatically within about six months.

Mr. Gallagher

(Waterford): There is a need for a review of the legislation and the section as it is worded is very limited. It states that the Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister appoints by order. I recognise that a certain amount of time will be required to draw up regulations, to specify times and places of hearings by the tribunal and so on but I should like to get an assurance from the Minister that it will not take six months to set up the tribunal. In Comer International there is a definite obstacle to a resumption of work because of the provisions in the original legislation. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that within a short time after the passing of the legislation that case will be heard by the tribunal. It will be up to the tribunal to adjudicate on the merits or demerits of the case of the employees of Comer International and if the tribunal find that they are not entitled to benefit the workers will accept it. However, under existing legislation they are debarred from obtaining such benefit. My reservation concerns the looseness of the section and I should like the Minister to indicate when he hopes to see the tribunal functioning so that problems such as the one which exists at Comer International can be adjudicated on.

Dr. Woods

In relation to the time the Act will come into being, I assure Deputies that I will make arrangements to have it in operation as early as possible — there will not be any delay on my part. Deputy Gallagher will be aware of the amendment which will bring the Act into operation from 1 June, which means that the Comer International matter can be considered. I appreciate the urgency in this respect. I cannot accept Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment for the reasons outlined by Deputy Pattison. I do not accept that it would be reasonable to have a review in six months but, as I said on Second Stage, I am prepared to arrange for a review after 12 months, by agreement between the Whips, and we can arrange to have a committee of the Oireachtas to review the operations of the Act and possibly to amend it in the light of experience. I appreciate that Deputies have certain apprehensions and fears but I assure them that we have taken all possible precautions, including discussions with the appropriate Departments and representatives of employees and employer. I have taken this matter very seriously in order to ensure that the measure will meet the problems.

Mr. O'Keeffe

If we were clear on the kind of review the Minister proposes I agree he has gone a long way to meet my amendment. The Minister said the review would take place after 12 months' operation of the Act. I want an assurance that the review will be immediately after 12 months' operation of the Act, because it could take place in five years and that would be after 12 months' operation of the Act. I want the review after the first 12 months. Second, I should like the review body to be an all-party group from the Dáil or from both Houses, and I should like an assurance that they will meet shortly after the year has expired. Perhaps the Minister cannot give me such a commitment because there is no guarantee that he will not be on this side then, but I hope he will give this serious consideration.

Dr. Woods

At the close of Second Stage I suggested that a committee of both Houses would carry out the review. I do not mind if the Deputy would prefer an all-party committee from this House — it can be arranged between the Whips. The review body could be set up after the expiry of the first 12 months. I would point out that it is important that when considering this Bill we do not confuse the problems that exist in regard to social welfare benefits and tax rebates. There are problems in relation to reimbursement of tax and social welfare benefits and these are being examined by a working tribunal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Dr. Woods

I thank Deputies for the way they have contributed to the debate. I give them my assurance that I have noted carefully the points they have made. I believe they understand that I am prepared to meet them to allay any fears they may have in relation to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.